Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the embarrassing information likely to be revealed during Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial, the media’s willful ignorance of the motivation of 9/11 terrorists, the self-defeating U.S. anti-terrorism strategy of targeted assassination without regard for the underlying grievances and the need for regional diplomatic solutions to energy resource conflicts.

The real problem is-as outlined by Scott Ritter, etc.-that the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. 100 nuclear explosions will produce Nuclear Winter. But that doesn´t matter to the Pentagon. When the second strike force is deployed at sea (and in the Balkans?), the Pentagon will have completed its First-Strike Capability and the Russian response will be an automatic Launch On Warning. Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 D5 linked to NAVSTAR obtain a CEP of 30-40 metres, enough to destroy any hard target. And according to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-http://www.plrc.org-the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. Bob Aldridge resigned because a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability is suicidal.

Thank you, Scott, for this interview and exposing the flaws in Mr. McGovern's "solutions".

Up until the part where he shed light on the fact that Israel declined an alliance offer from the U.S., he came across as a good analyst, similar to Schuerer. He lost all credibility with me to be other than an analyst once you started picking "a fight".

What is it about these guys that are so good at identifying root causes and then failing so miserably at what are the obvious next steps – that they themselves point out.

After walking us through in unambiguous language the motives behind RY actions and the alleged actions of KSM and OBL – avenging the one-sided support and enabling of Israel's actions in the Middle East by their non-ally, the U.S. – he explicitly states that the U.S. should address their grievances if we want to stop further acts of vengeance directed at the U.S.

One would think that calling Gaza an open-air concentration camp would reinforce this recommendation.

Instead, what do we get? A fucking bunch of political claptrap about moral obligation, leaving responsibly, learning to share, involve other countries.

Ray, the U.S. through its military has just raped a country leaving death, destruction, and despair in its wake and you want the U.S. to talk with others about sharing resources that don't belong to them, returning the country to its pre-invasion state? Fuck you. Stick to the analysis and listen to what Malalai Joya had to say with Scott.

Hey, back off. Our notorious abandonment of Afghanistan, after the Soviets dragged themselves out of the "Afghan trap" Zbig Brzezinski bragged about in 1998, further stoked the fires of that bogus holy war.

You seriously suggest, having effed up that region with our bogus holy wars for three decades now, that we just up and leave? 'Eff you, Afghanistan, we're outta here!' How about reparations? Don't we owe the Afghans at least that?

Malalai Joya is right, we must leave as soon as humanly possible, we aren't doing them any good by Balkinizing the region, and our cover story has worn thin (albeit not thin enough for Scott to see through it).

But just get on a plane and go? IMO, you're both wrong, and Ray is right.

Here's what really blows my mind: Scott, how could you not know why we're in Afghanistan to begin with? WTF?

Talk about blowing your own credibility! Haven't you been reading Pepe Escobar? Ever hear the phrase "full-spectrum dominance?" "Arc of instability?" "Nabucco?" What about TAPI?

It's the oil interests! Duh. I can't believe I'm having to tell you this. Ray was spot on for schooling you.

I suggest you catch up with Escobar's excellent reporting, over at TheRealNews.com, and in AsiaTimes online, before you try lecturing somebody else on how to end a bogus holy war for oil while being ignorant of the basic facts. Start with "Iran, China, and the New Silk Road." But do get to "Full Spectrum Dominance" ASAP.

Of note:
Enduring Freedom Until 2050
"In only 450 days, the number of troops in Afghanistan has swelled from 67,000 to 118,000. Since 2001, the United States has spent $179 billion in the country, while its European allies have burned $102 billion. The tragicomedy is clear: the US and its allies will do – and spend – whatever it takes to implant military bases on the doorstep of Russia and China, and to get their gas pipeline on track. – Pepe Escobar (Sep 8, '09)" http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI09Df01….

US's 'arc of instability' just gets bigger
"In 2007, a former US ambassador to Colombia was sent to Afghanistan to implement a counter-insurgency disguised as a war on drugs. It makes some sense: Afghanistan is to opium what Colombia is to cocaine. And inevitably that's where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization comes in. The only part of the world where NATO is still not active is … South America. The New Great Game will soon stretch from AfPak to Mexico. – Pepe Escobar (Sep 2, '09) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI03Df01….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And about that "claptrap." Ray is suggesting we quit our bullying ways, quit substituting might for right, forswear any more resource wars and cooperate with the other nations of the world peacefully to resolve our differences. We're all in this together. And for that you give him f-bombs left and right?

I must say, nice display of civility. You always treat your comrades like this? Can't you disagree respectfully? I dare say Ray has done more for this country and this issue than impotent tantrums in comments ever will. Give the man his due. Try not losing your cool next time someone says something with which you disagree.

Ray McGovern is getting a bit shy, I think. He's been smeared so viciously and falsely by the pro-Israel crowd with the "anti-Semite" label, he's started to pull his punches a little. I'm with you, Glenn: enough with this garbage about leaving the Middle East "responsibly" – so as to minimize any discomfort for dear little Israel, of course. Let's just get the hell out quick, and tell the Israelis with all due disrespect to go eff themselves.

The Gaza invasion was the turning point, that invasion coupled with the internet taking the information distribution away from the mass media have led to the people realizing that their childrens futures might be in danger from these agendas.
The awakening of the masses is something that the politicians cannot dare ignore because the people cannot be stopped by any force.

Pace Glenn, my "eff you" was for Israel, not for Afghanistan, and certainly not for the indispensible Ray McGovern. And as for our paying reparations to Afghanistan, I think that would be quite appropriate. Ditto re Iraq. Moreover, reparations, even at a quite generous level, could actually be less costly than continued wars and occupations, and threats of new wars for Israel.

I wish your sensibilities had not been offended, knowbuddhau. Apparently my comment was not so impotent.

Antiwar.com Radio is the last place I thought I had to worry about that.

I'm sure Ray McGovern has done more for this issue than I ever will and Scott knew more by 18 than I'll ever know about these issues.

I've listened to the interview three times and I come away with the same conclusions: decisive analysis and explanations pertaining to motive for attacks(roots of terrorism) and an explicit recommendation to address grievances; a direct answer to Scott asking why the U.S. is in Afghanistan; and a vague defense of a qualified withdrawal(I was very disappointed).

I don't see how pulling the U.S. military out immediately is connected to making reparations. Justice is due the people injured at the hand of the U.S. Government. How that justice is dispensed remains to be seen and history does not support the idea that the U.S. Government is up to that task.

I don't know what attacking me personally does for you, but it doesn't change my conclusion that Ray issued a standard justification heard hear before. Medea Williams comes to mind.

Scott has had many quests that are very good analysts in my opinion, but fall short when it comes to synthesizing all they have learned into a solution. It usually boils down to more government to fix government(Glenn Greenwald and the other Scott Horton come to mind). Sometimes, they nail the right thing to do, than contradict themselves.

Scott is a master at identifying these lapses and challenges his guests quickly.

My f-bombs, while not as civil as you like, are acceptable to me when it comes to the defense of liberty. Civility is for academia and the round tables of intelligentsia.

Lots of Rapturites vote for supporters of Israel Probably lots of Rapturites run for office and get elected on pro-Israel platforms.

Then there's the power of the cowboys-and-indians myth with ordinary Americans. Loads think arabs=indians and israelis=cowboys. Few know that half of Israelis come from Arab countries, and had grannies who spoke Judaeo-Arabic.

I believe Scott has interviewed Mr. Escobar at least once within the last few months. There are of course competing theories about the real motives behind the U.S. government's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Personally I think it's all about protecting that pipeline as well as having a strategic presence right in the middle of Central Asia. It's a real stupid strategy, based on a ludicrous assumption that the U.S. can continue controlling the whole world with force of arms while we beg China for the cash to continue paying for the cost of it.

"immediate and unconditional withdrawal" and "responsible, etc." withdrawal may not be contradictory. The first represents the principled sentiment. It also suggests that more bombing or assassination not be used as final bargaining chips. With that it mind, one does have to negotiate a responsible withdrawal over such details as a ceasefire and protection during the withdrawal, which military posts are handed over to which forces (if not abandoned), which trucks and hardware are left behind and for who, what gets destroyed, what gets hauled out and so on. (And probably who gets bribed – I mean receives material assistance – to help it go smoothly). If the negotiators can generate goodwill I'd like to see an offer to leave behind medical and physical therapy units, landmine clearing, and other civic action/reconstruction teams even in Taliban controlled areas. The alternative would be massive chaos all round.

Just pack up and leave. Any effort to "leave responsibly" will be used by the war party to continue the occupation. We leave and then negotiate any compensation we owe with the Afghan regime that takes power.

My sensibilities aren't the issue here. You went off on RM, saying he "lost all credibility in [your] eyes" because he said things with which you disagree.

If that was indeed a brotherly f-you, then you can take my "Hey, back off" the same way.

Since you brought up the issue of credibility, I replied in kind regarding Horton's dumb ass quip, "I don't know why we're in Afghanistan." I say again, WTF? That flip remark blew my mind. And it's even more mind-boggling if he's actually interviewed Escobar, one of the planet's best journalist, and didn't learn at least that it's all about Pipelineistan.

Regarding your suggestion: Think about it. Withdrawal will have to occur over weeks and months, not days. There's a whole lot of hardware over there, should we abandon it to the Taliban? Or is the rapidity of our compliance with your demands the real issue here?

McGovern has the one thing a lot of us citizen journalists don't: first-hand experience. That's what speaks to me. So when I disagree with him, and I myself have criticized him in this very space, it's with a measure of respect.

You might try extending a hand of friendship, instead of throwing tantrums, next time someone disagrees with you. It's called "maturity".

Or you can try stomping your feet and holding your breath. And if that don't work, I got a barely-used pair of ruby slippers I'll sell you. You can click your heels and say, "Bring our troops home."

Is not packing up and leaving also to leave responsibly? So what's the real issue here, the speed?

Think about it. Packing up and leaving IS leaving responsibly. Or should we leave all our hardware and run away?

And the compensation? Will it include cleaning up all the depleted uranium dust? Compensating the victims generations from now?

This is what is meant by "the accumulated evil of the whole." We've gone to war for oil, our cover story is a thong of lies, and now the land itself is poisoned. How are we going to compensate that? Same goes for Iraq, you know, we've used tons of DU on them, too.

Sounds like Vietnam. It's our registered trademark.

So let's renounce war, AGAIN, renounce all empire, close all bases, and withdraw all troops. Responsibly. We're going to need the money to pay our victims.

And if the whole effort isn't happening fast enough for you, welcome to the adult world. Do you think the generations who've gone before us felt any better about it?

Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently fast.

I keep listening to the newscast lecture about getting boundless online grant applications so I have been looking around for the best site to get one. Could you tell me please, where could i find some?